Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp 1020–1032 | Cite as

How conceptual overlap and modality pairings affect task-switching and mixing costs

  • Jonathan SchachererEmail author
  • Eliot Hazeltine
Original Article

Abstract

Manipulating the pairings of stimulus and response modalities has been shown to affect how response selection processes for distinct tasks interact. For example, Stephan and Koch (Psychol Res 75(6):491–498, 2011) found smaller performance costs when participants switched between visual–manual (VM) and auditory–vocal (AV) tasks (modality compatible; MC) compared to between visual–vocal (VV) and auditory–manual (AM) tasks (modality incompatible; MI). However, in the Stephan and Koch study, there was conceptual overlap between one set of stimuli and one set of responses. For the MC pair, these stimuli and responses belonged to the same task, whereas for the MI pair, they belonged to different tasks. To examine how conceptual overlap affected switch and mixing costs, we conducted two experiments. Experiment 1a was a near replication of Stephan and Koch in which conceptual overlap was present in the MC AV task. In contrast, Experiment 1b reduced conceptual overlap within the MC AV task and increased it in the MI VV task. In Experiment 1a, we replicated Stephan and Koch’s findings: larger switch costs were observed for the MI pair; in Experiment 1b, we found numerically greater switch costs in the MC condition. In Experiment 2, we reduced conceptual overlap in both tasks and found no effect of modality compatibility on switch costs. However, mixing costs were primarily driven by modality compatibility, regardless of conceptual overlap. These results highlight the different roles that conceptual overlap and modality pairings have on switch and mixing costs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alexandria Miller, Scott Roiter, and Addie Wilkinson for assisting with data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Jonathan Schacherer declares he has no conflict of interest. Eliot Hazeltine declares he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the instructional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Allport, A., Styles, E., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39(4), 713–726. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00466-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fintor, E., Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2017). Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: Modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality. Psychological Research. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0875-5.Google Scholar
  6. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility—correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(6), 483–492. doi: 10.1037/h0054967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility—spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199–210. doi: 10.1037/h0062827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86(1), 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenwald, A. G., & Shulman, H. G. (1973). On doing two things at once. II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research, 70(6), 504–513. doi: 10.1007/s00426-005-0017-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52(4), 291–345. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hunt, A. R., & Klein, R. M. (2002). Eliminating the cost of task set reconfiguration. Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 529–539. doi: 10.3758/Bf03194954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 5–82.Google Scholar
  14. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. doi: 10.1037/a0019842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743–777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. W. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855–875. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.855.Google Scholar
  18. Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D. N., Sturm, W., Willmes, K., & Koch, I. (2015). The role of crossmodal competition and dimensional overlap in crossmodal attention switching. Acta Psychologica, 155, 67–76. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 145–188. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00050-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S–R association strength and relative timing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(1), 95–136. doi: 10.1080/02724980042000048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: Further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74(3), 255–267. doi: 10.1007/s00426-009-0246-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray, M. M., De Santis, L., Thut, G., & Wylie, G. R. (2009). The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision. Brain and Cognition, 69(1), 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 435–448.Google Scholar
  27. Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(7), 1325–1338. doi: 10.1080/02724980443000656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Philipp, A. M., Weidner, R., Koch, I., & Fink, G. R. (2013). Differential roles of inferior frontal and inferior parietal cortex in task switching: Evidence from stimulus-categorization switching and response-modality switching. Human Brain Mapping, 34(8), 1910–1920. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Proctor, R. W., Wang, H. F., & Vu, K. P. L. (2002). Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus–response compatibility. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.124.2.207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1477–1491. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797.Google Scholar
  33. Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research, 70(6), 494–503. doi: 10.1007/s00426-005-0012-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus–response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: An fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 514–525. doi: 10.1007/s00426-005-0013-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input–output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1075–1081. doi: 10.1037/a0019695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75(6), 491–498. doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0353-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2016). Modality-specific effects on crosstalk in task switching: Evidence from modality compatibility using bimodal stimulation. Psychological Research, 80(6), 935–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25(2), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations